Microsoft has just responded to Google's move regarding Exchange ActiveSync. Sadly, instead of addressing the very real problems consumers are about to face, Microsoft starts talking about switching to Outlook.com.

They aren't totally independent. Saying that release version X will stay relevant for Y amount of time and support SET Z of features is part of the release.

Indeed. But to then credit the longer release cycles in IE to it's versioning (which is what you did), is a step too far. I can see the logic behind your statement, but it's deeply flawed logic.

Version numbing is essentially just a naming convention. What you're talking about is releases. Each release needs a name / version number; true. But just because some numbers increment differently to others doesn't make one product more or less enterprise ready (unlike the claim you made).

If you had even the slightest idea what you were talking about, you'd realise the idiocity of making such a leap.

Version numbing is essentially just a naming convention. What you're talking about is releases. Each release needs a name / version number; true. But just because some numbers increment differently to others doesn't make one product more or less enterprise ready (unlike the claim you made).

I never said that, another example of something you have made up in your imagination.

I said that the IE release cycle was longer because they support a particular version for longer, and I said I expect the same is true for .NET.